Why has the President spent millions to suppress his ID and who is he really?

As President Barack Obama completes four years in office and runs for re-election in November, a majority of Americans  55%  believe he was born in the United States. However, 20% of Americans do not believe Obama was born in the US, while another 25% arent sure where he was born. Never before have so many Americans doubted the fundamental basis of their presidents identity. Why is this so?

On one level, the answer is easy given the absence of verifiable bona fides attesting to Obamas life story, from every college record to every travel document, from every medical record to every legal writing to every law practice billing record to every record of his tenure as an Illinois state senator  and more. But the story has had to penetrate the American psyche in spite of a deep freeze on the topic in conventional channels. The Obama identity story, burning at the grass-roots-level for more than four years now, is consistently snuffed out and ignored by American journalists and the political class, from elected leaders to party officials. This silence is strictly non-partisan, and spans the political spectrum.

An investigation, undertaken by a so-called cold case posse working for Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County, Arizona, has now concluded that not one but two Obama basic identity documents are, without a doubt, forgeries: 1) the computer file (pdf) of the 1961 birth certificate that appears on the White House website; and 2) the presidents 1980 military draft registration card released by the U.S. Selective Service Administration shortly before the 2008 election. These investigators maintain they can prove this in court.

The story of how they might do so is verboten, too. But somehow the saga doesnt end up in George Orwells memory hole. This is due mainly to the irrepressible nature of the Internet.

It is here, for example, and not in the mainstream media, where, following the White House online release of Obamas 1961 long-form birth certificate on April 27, 2011, a small army of private individuals with varying degrees of technology expertise downloaded the document file and delved into the unexpectedly unflattened graphic composition layers. They submitted a series of computer forensics analyses to this online public square, arguing that the White House pdf had been fraudulently manipulated. Since that time, similar evidence has been methodically amassed and repeatedly tested under the auspices of Sheriff Arpaios cold case team.

Sheriff Arpaio formed this cold case posse after 250 local citizens asked him to determine whether Obama was eligible to appear on the Arizona presidential ballot in 2012.

On two occasions in 2012, the posse presented findings to the public. They concluded that the birth certificate on the White House website didnt originate on a piece of paper but rather was created, or, more precisely, forged as an electronic file on a computer. As one Adobe expert and posse consultant put it: The only time Obamas long-form birth certificate image exists as a paper document is when a computer user selects Print from the File menu.

At this point, the posse would like to turn over all of its evidence to Congress for a formal investigation. Like a hand grenade that could go off at any moment, however, such an investigation has no takers. And so the fuse burns on not one, but two potential constitutional crises.

One involves the biggest unsolved mystery in American history: If Arpaios findings are correct, who did it? The other potential crisis, while linked to the first, is much more transparent. The U.S. Constitution lays out three criteria for president and vice president. Article II, Section 1, requires that the president be at least 35 years of age, have lived 14 years in the United States, and be a natural-born citizen.

Natural born citizens are distinct from citizens who are native-born (born in the country) or naturalized. While native-born or naturalized citizen may hold any other office, only natural born citizens are eligible for the presidency, the idea being that Americas founders wanted to ensure that the chief executive had allegiance only to the American republic.

The Constitution doesnt define natural born, but according to common law at the time and, later, the 1875 U.S. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett, a natural born citizen is understood to be someone born in the U.S. to citizen parents (plural). Minor spelled out this definition and is thus the signal case. It is remarkable that in mid-2008, as Barack Obama was clinching the presidential nomination, references to the Minor case inexplicably disappeared from 25 related U.S. Supreme Court decisions archived at Justia.com, a leading legal search engine popular with journalists and legal bloggers. Coincidence? When attorney and blogger Leo Donofrio, whose Obama eligibility challenge went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in December 2008 (dismissed), discovered this apparent tampering in 2011, Justia called it a programming error. The blogosphere called it Justiagate. The media, of course, said nothing at all.

So where does this leave the president, the son of a white American teen mother and a black British subject from Kenya? (Kenya became independent in 1963.)

According to his own story, Baby Obama came into the world with dual American-British citizenship. At the same time, however, there is, to date, zero verifiable evidence to be found of his Hawaiian birth; meanwhile there is circumstantial evidence of alternative nativities. For example, the personal biography Obamas former literary agent used to promote Obama described him as born in Kenya. This biography, written in 1991, remained on the agency website until April 2007  two months after then-Senator Obama announced his presidential run.

Other oddities include a missing week of immigration cards tracking American arrivals into Hawaii from abroad that should be in the national archives. Obamas birthday in August 1961 falls in this missing week. In light of unexplained facts such as these, in light of the Obama documents that remain sealed, its really not so hard to see where a foreign nativity story comes from  or at least why a number of Americans are confused.

Many have heard about the two 1961 newspapers that published announcements of Obamas birth. Posse investigators discovered that foreign-born children were similarly announced as Hawaiian births in these same papers, while they also found a set of adopted twins who were several years old before their birth announcements appeared.

Further complicating Obamas citizenship story is an undisputed school record from Jakarta which identifies young Obama as a citizen of Indonesia. With all of this in mind, its hard to stamp Obama natural-born. Still, no challenger to date has managed to convince an American court of this. Of course, almost every single case has been dismissed before trial.

Also worth noting is that almost every single case sought the same thing: the release of the Obama birth long-form birth certificate. This is the very document the White House website put on display in April 2011. Obama spent an estimated one to three million dollars to fight previous attempts to compel him to release this same document. What happened to make the president change his mind?

Two senior White House officials presided over the birth certificates unveiling at a pen-and-paper, off-camera, no audio-recording, press conference. One journalist in the pack pointed out, some people are going to remain unconvinced. He continued: Theyre going to say that this is just a photocopy of a piece of paper. You could have typed anything in there. Will the actual birth certificate be on display or viewable at any 

The White House transcript breaks off with the word: (laughter).

Who will get the last laugh? Barack Obama? Sheriff Arpaio? The politicians who keep their heads down, or the citizens who take their Constitution seriously? Whoever laughs last, it seems safe to say that the Obama birth certificate is a very funny document.

They submitted a series of computer forensics analyses to this online public square, arguing that the White House pdf had been fraudulently manipulated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

“They” includes Freeper Polarik and Freeper Research Specialist Fred Nerks, as well as others.

Their research has been bent yet again by Joel Gilberts recent movie, where he falsely claims that Obama’s real father is Frank Marshall Davis. This was done specifically to gain the public opinion that all of the initiatives to obtain Obama’s true background, including Sherrif Arapaio’s Cold Case Posse, are all “nutters.”

BTW, there is no evidence which would support the conclusion that Frank Marshall Davis was Obama’s father.We all know that Stanley Anne Dunham was not the mother of Obama, the time lines of where SAD was during critical points of time simply do not point to her being Obama’s biological mother. Then Anne Dunham, another woman, complicates matters of record by also having born Obama Sr. a child ( Obama Sr. had several so called wives.)

The fact is that we simply do not know who Obama is, the crucial records have been expunged.

We do know one thing though for sure. Obama is a usurper of Congressional convention and a destroyer of the Constitution. Obamas refusal to negotiate with Congress to pass compromise laws, even with a Democrat absolute majority for two years,and his substitution of executive orders for the Congressional process, has lead to a fiscal disaster, and a weakening of the entire nation, as Obama had planned ab initio.

Obama is a clear and present danger to the United States of America, and he should be treated accordingly by the electorate.

The People must enforce the constitution , the Courts will not, they have refused or failed to do so. They will attempt to do so by using the ballot box, and if they fail in that endeavour as they likely will, then other more rigorous and perhaps unfortunate methods will surely follow.But the People will remain free, at any cost. Obama is banking that Americans do not have the committment or fortitude to regain the freedom he has so strenuopusly and continuously usurped.Obama is very mistaken in his supposition, and he is as good as gone, but it may take another decade to be rid of Obama and all he has wrought.

Hopefully, in another five months it won’t matter a bit WHERE he’s from; he’ll be going back there and vanishing into the obscurity that his dishonesty and his utter lack of insight and talent warrant.

On one level, the answer is easy given the absence of verifiable bona fides attesting to Obamas life story, from every college record to every travel document, from every medical record to every legal writing to every law practice billing record to every record of his tenure as an Illinois state senator  and more.

This:

At the same time, however, there is, to date, zero verifiable evidence to be found of his Hawaiian birth; meanwhile there is circumstantial evidence of alternative nativities.

...and this:

Other oddities include a missing week of immigration cards tracking American arrivals into Hawaii from abroad that should be in the national archives. Obamas birthday in August 1961 falls in this missing week. In light of unexplained facts such as these, in light of the Obama documents that remain sealed, its really not so hard to see where a foreign nativity story comes from

Literally everything about this person, is a fabrication, a lie, or incomplete in authenticity, and he likes it that way, or he would have done something about it. For a US political party, or any group to lend their support to such, is at best un-American, and at the worst treasonous. This does not begin to address individual voter support of the same.

Further complicating Obamas citizenship story is an undisputed school record from Jakarta which identifies young Obama as a citizen of Indonesia. With all of this in mind, its hard to stamp Obama natural-born. Still, no challenger to date has managed to convince an American court of this. Of course, almost every single case has been dismissed before trial.

Also worth noting is that almost every single case sought the same thing: the release of the Obama birth long-form birth certificate. This is the very document the White House website put on display in April 2011. Obama spent an estimated one to three million dollars to fight previous attempts to compel him to release this same document. What happened to make the president change his mind?

Obama's long form birth certificate was sealed and archived by the Hawaii DoH through Court order when the Soetoro adoption was finalized. It's legally void and cannot be used as evidence in any Court for any reason.

Hawaii is one of the few states that will provide a copy of the original long form birth certificate to adult adoptees.

After the Soetoro adoption was finalized, Obama obtained Indonesian citizenship and forfeited his U.S. Citizenship status. Since he was minor at the time of his citizenship status change, he was given until 6 months after his 18th birthday to regain his U.S. Citizenship status and his Natural born citizenship status.

For whatever reason, he chose to regain his U.S. Citizenship status in 1983 through the naturalization process. His Certificate of Naturalization if on file with the USCIS with the Department of Homeland Security.

Hopefully, in another five months it wont matter a bit WHERE hes from; hell be going back there and vanishing into the obscurity that his dishonesty and his utter lack of insight and talent warrant.

Unfortunately, the American people will be paying retirement and maintenance for this creep and his family for the rest of their lives.

After the Soetoro adoption was finalized, Obama obtained Indonesian citizenship and forfeited his U.S. Citizenship status.

Can a minor forfeit U.S. citizenship? I had presumed that when he was adopted, he would have been naturalized as an Indonesian citizen under Indonesian law, and that the U.S. would have recognized dual U.S.-Indonesian citizenship. But that is mere presumption; I don't know the rules.

Since he was minor at the time of his citizenship status change, he was given until 6 months after his 18th birthday to regain his U.S. Citizenship status and his Natural born citizenship status.

That's my understanding as well. As a minor with dual citizenship, Obama would have needed to make a declaration upon coming of age. But I don't know what the default rules are if he failed to do so. He was living in the U.S. at that point, and had been doing so since he was 10(?). I wonder if he had a passport at that point.

For whatever reason, he chose to regain his U.S. Citizenship status in 1983 through the naturalization process. His Certificate of Naturalization if on file with the USCIS with the Department of Homeland Security.

Is this confirmed? If he was born in 1961 and naturalized in 1983, that creates a strong presumption that he applied to college as a foreign student. I say presumption rather than a certainty because I'm not sure the dual nationality issue is settled. It would of course be helpful to know what passport he was carrying, but those records of course are super-duper top secret.

The Committee on Presidential Elections is chartered as an impartial, non-profit. They have organized our Presidential debates since 1988. Their own criteria requires each participating candidate to be natural born citizen, as required by the Constitution:

“I want to see him prosecuted, stripped of all pension benefits, fined, and jailed.”

We said this with the Clintons, too, but the Libs howled about how tragic it would be to “besmirch” the Office of the POTUS like that (never mind Clinton had already besmirched and jeapordized it no end anyway); that and the gang-up by the Democrat media made it highly unlikely anyone would do the right thing. Obama’s situation is like that for the most part; only his case is, in my estimation, more on a par with Hitler in Germany before the war. I esteem the MSM along the lines of the German media at that time. (Tom Broke Off notwithstanding.)

“Hopefully, in another five months it wont matter a bit WHERE hes from; “^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, it does matter. Crimes have been committed, if he not a natural born citizen.

If he is not a natural born citizen, he defrauded millions in election contributions. It is a crime against the nation to pose as the Commander in Chief and be a usurper. It costs the taxpayers thousands for every minute that he and his family use Air Force One and the secret service. There are the legal questions that surround every bill and executive order that he signed.

If Sheriff Arpaio had an ounce of patriotism in his body, then he’d drive over to Janet Napolitino’s house in Maricopa County and get Obama’s Certificate of Naturalization. As DHS Secretary, Janet Napolitano is the custodian of Obama’s proof of ineligibility.

Everyone should ignore dinodino. He, She, it is participating in treason.

I know, this is truly sickening. Obama has NEVER been called upon to explain where the born-in-kenya factoid could possibly have come from except from HIM. Congress and the news media should be hounding him on this to at least get his story on record. You know they would have been all over a Republican president in similar circumstances.

Perhaps this explains Obama refusal to take questions except from the lapdogs. But even this seems to be accepted without much fuss.

of course if Malcolm X is his daddy, then probably his mother is too....a white female mistress that MX had to hide away due to his stature as a white hater in the black community...so that would probably make bammey a full blown natural citizen...

so what is bammey hiding?.

so I think its entirely possible that bammey is not bammey at all...that whoever suggested that he has taken over the ID of some other obammey might be right...that the scar on bammey 's head might be from some mva he had....

does any of this make sense to those who want him re-elected over Mitt Romney.....?????.....I just don't understand it....

I always take faith in the fact that everyone has to eat at the table of their own consequences....but sadly, so many that I wish that on are still alive and well ...Howard Hughes...Clintoon...Soros...bammey will probable skate thru unless some horrible cancer gets to him first...

Still, no challenger to date has managed to convince an American court of this.

It shouldn't have even gotten close to a courtroom. It should have been stopped dead in its tracks from Congress and the GOP. We have a definition from Homeland Security and from Congress that 1) born in the US and 2) of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS in SR511 that they (Obama and Hillary signed it twice) vetted McCain on. Crickets on holding the same standard to the usurper. I blame Congress but I blame the Republicans more.

Just my opinion:
If BO can be shown to be an Indoniaian Citizen at any time, would not the onus be on BO to prove otherwise. He can’t use the BC. He sure as hell will not declare he Naturalized(as you and others have explained. So the issue is not to get his BC. It is to prove he was an Indo citizen or even a Brit.

This is a link where you can see an AP photo taken when Obama was exiting a movie while on vacation in Hawaii 2009.

I saw this at the time and have always wondered why the glasses? His annual medical checkup said 20/20 vision and no need for corrective lenses. Why would you need to wear glasses to a movie unless you have a vision problem?

Always using the closeup teleprompter and this photo makes me wonder if he is covering up a vision problem. If so, why?

I reckon Howard Hughes is dead, unless he had himself preserved somehow. Soros is getting old, so’s Clintoon, Bammy’s in his 50’s. Time wounds all heels who don’t repent, and repentance doesn’t seem to be in the vocabulary of these guys. Time’s a passing . . . tick tock . . . for us all . . . more for some than for others . . .

Given that both of his BC - the COLB and LFBC are frauds and not authentic Hawaii State issued documents they can do what they want with them - either in digital form or printed on a printer.

What that can not do with either is show them in court.

As for being a Brit. He has already claimed this. Indicating he was born a dual citizen. But since Kenya was not yet independent he was British - at birth. Assuming Obama was listed as the father at that time.

Many indicate Obama ‘lost’ his British status when Kenya became independent. But ‘losing’ British citizenship status or the right to claim British citizenship is almost never ‘lost’.

What is missing in this particular situation is another document. British government form RN.

RN is the formal renouncing of your British loyalty and citizenship. While looking for BCs and passports someone should try to find form RN. Without it Obama is still a loyal British subject I believe.

As a British subject he should be careful about what British military secrets he gives to the Russians and should probably give the Queen an upgraded IPOD.

49
posted on 08/31/2012 12:44:06 PM PDT
by bluecat6
( "A non-denial denial. They doubt our heritage, but they don't say the story is not accurate.")

This is a generally very good article. However it includes several points that cause the serious Constitutional Lawyer to tune out before getting to the significant material.

The Constitution doesnt define natural born, but according to common law at the time and, later, the 1875 U.S. Supreme Court case Minor v. Happersett, a natural born citizen is understood to be someone born in the U.S. to citizen parents (plural). Minor spelled out this definition and is thus the signal case.

That argument is simply based on a technical misreading of the decision in Minor. The language where the Court itself characterizes its decision as a holding that a person born in the United States of two citizen parents is what technical lawyers call "obiter dicta"--it isn't part of the court's decision no matter what the author of the opinion said.

For these two reasons either of which is sufficient on its own.

The argument in Minor was by a lady who claimed to be a US Citizen. She was born in the United States and there is a legion of authority for the proposition that a person born in the United States is a citizen no matter what the circumstances of their birth. Thus addition of the proposition that both of her parents were citizens is simply surplus language--what lawyers call dicta.

You may not like that answer but there is no doubt or room for argument that is the correct answer as a matter of law--that's the reason all of the lawyers on our side who have made that argument to a court have been laughed out of the jurisdiction.

Further, the only issue before the Court in Minor was whether or not the plaintiff was a US Citizen at all--no argument about whether or not she would be treated as "natural born" under Article II, Sec. 1 of the Constitution.

In our law, the question of whether or not an individual is "natural born" is relevant only for purposes of resolving an argument over whether the individual is eligible to hold the office of President of the United States. That was not the issue here. Thus addition of the term "natural born" in the Court's holding was again, surplus language not relevant to the decision and is thus dicta.

Given the state of the law on the subject, it is impossible to conceive of a set of facts on which a person would be held not to be Natural Born if they were born in the USA.

I understand that is not the popular view. Personally, in my view, that ought not be the law. But that is the way the Court will come down and failure to deal with a realistic understanding of the law on this topic is what precluded lawyers on our side from being able to disqualify zero from the Georgia ballot.

There are two points about the born in Kenya thesis.

If you could show that he was born in Kenya to Stanley and Obama Senior as parents, he was not born a citizen of the United States at all--applicable citizenship statutes are clear on that point. No possible way he would be held Natural Born.

Further, as the article points out, zero went around for years telling anyone who would listen (and authorizing biographies setting forth) that he was born in Kenya.

Under another fairly obscure legal doctrine in the law of evidence, such statements against interest are in most jurisdictions under most circumstances, evidence that is where he was born.

Since there is no other evidence of any nature where he was born, in the proper legal proceeding (which was in place before the ALJ in Georgia and muffed by our lawyers), a court should hold that zero was obligated to prove on the record where he was in fact born or be held to have been born in Kenya, whether he was in fact born there or not.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.